Uber terms mean couple can't sue after 'life-changing' crash(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Uber terms mean couple can't sue after 'life-changing' crash
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy9j8ldp0lo
60 comments
I'd say that's a very rational anger. Lean into it. :)
I appreciate the sentiment, but may I ask why, or for what purpose?
Some of this makes me extraordinarily angry because it isn’t just the ridiculous arbitration clause thing, it’s the symptom of a much larger problem that over the past couple of years I’ve deemed completely hopeless.
Voting - doesn’t really work in my mind, partly because politicians are in the pockets of big companies or lobbies, and even if they werent, they control most of the information the voting populace consumes and control/inject narratives as they please. Not even to mention the courts, or the impossible nature of the current 2 party climate (USA)
protest - first requires a critical mass of enough people being mad to actually do something about it (see corporate bootlicker comments all over the web for evidence why we’re nowhere close). If that critical mass is achieved, you may still get punished severely by the state in the form of riot police or other forms of police harassment, especially if youre an organizer
crime/sabotage - not particularly appealing to me because I loathe the idea of prison, but even if it weren’t for that, this is a powerful enemy you have no hope of beating and I think would be the least effective
journalism - this probably has the most chance and something Ive been working on on the side, writers like Ed Zitron have done a very good job so far at screeching into the void about how effed this is, but this also faces similar issues as protesting or voting - the state has methods to intimidate you into stfu’ing, and companies have methods to make sure you’re never heard by a significant audience
last option, I guess, is to just be extremely angry and bitter, which isn’t great either.
Some of this makes me extraordinarily angry because it isn’t just the ridiculous arbitration clause thing, it’s the symptom of a much larger problem that over the past couple of years I’ve deemed completely hopeless.
Voting - doesn’t really work in my mind, partly because politicians are in the pockets of big companies or lobbies, and even if they werent, they control most of the information the voting populace consumes and control/inject narratives as they please. Not even to mention the courts, or the impossible nature of the current 2 party climate (USA)
protest - first requires a critical mass of enough people being mad to actually do something about it (see corporate bootlicker comments all over the web for evidence why we’re nowhere close). If that critical mass is achieved, you may still get punished severely by the state in the form of riot police or other forms of police harassment, especially if youre an organizer
crime/sabotage - not particularly appealing to me because I loathe the idea of prison, but even if it weren’t for that, this is a powerful enemy you have no hope of beating and I think would be the least effective
journalism - this probably has the most chance and something Ive been working on on the side, writers like Ed Zitron have done a very good job so far at screeching into the void about how effed this is, but this also faces similar issues as protesting or voting - the state has methods to intimidate you into stfu’ing, and companies have methods to make sure you’re never heard by a significant audience
last option, I guess, is to just be extremely angry and bitter, which isn’t great either.
Voting - First-pass-the-post fails mathematically once two majority parties come to power, no third party can win, and if both parties are subverted (into one hidden party with a hidden agenda) democracy then fails.
We are seeing a perfect example of this with regards to Harris/Trump. Trump closely aligns with Fascism, Harris policies closely align with Marxism/Communism. You only have a choice between the two, is that even a choice?
Protest - Has always relied on the inherent threat of violence and leaders being responsive to the groups involved. It has been shown in the last 20 years that the threat of violence no longer works, and leaders have learned to be no longer responsive at all once they have been elected so long as they don't commit any crimes or scandals that would force removal of them from their positions. Additionally, when protests occur, surveillance of any protest guarantees government retaliation moving forward for all individuals involved. Surveillance is never by itself, there is always government harassment associated with it that are often impossible to prove. Any protester has likely seen the telltale signs of this, and it never ends. (i.e. mail goes missing, both sending and receiving, communications/cell phone calls become unreliable in ways ou can't know a message was sent, internet services may throw weird errors on a continual basis, email/submissions dropped silently (i.e. job applications/resumes, or other high importance items like taxes).
Crime/sabotage will increase as its one of the only viable response mechanisms, actual violence too because of the increased cost imposed through broad surveillance efforts. Protesting is protected under the law, but we don't really have a sound rule of law right now since surveillance allows attacks on individuals without attribution.
Journalism - not viable because state run media under the trusted news initiative can outspend and crush competition, and they violate journalistic practices (i.e. they don't distinguish or separate opinion/facts/must-runs from head office in their news broadcasts).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
All this means is that the systems and society will slowly erode and fail, and wise people are preparing now because when order fails so does food production. In a grid down situation you need food, trusted people, and guns (to protect from the food being stolen).
Since you are into SRE/DevOps you are very familiar with cascade failures, and resiliency design as am I. If you have not read Mises, you might enjoy his works on socialism (written in the 1930s) as a structural analysis of how centralized systems involving people fail.
While it is an intractable problem at this point, it isn't hopeless, because it is not the end, but rather a new beginning. There will be dark times ahead, but being forewarned is being forearmed.
We are seeing a perfect example of this with regards to Harris/Trump. Trump closely aligns with Fascism, Harris policies closely align with Marxism/Communism. You only have a choice between the two, is that even a choice?
Protest - Has always relied on the inherent threat of violence and leaders being responsive to the groups involved. It has been shown in the last 20 years that the threat of violence no longer works, and leaders have learned to be no longer responsive at all once they have been elected so long as they don't commit any crimes or scandals that would force removal of them from their positions. Additionally, when protests occur, surveillance of any protest guarantees government retaliation moving forward for all individuals involved. Surveillance is never by itself, there is always government harassment associated with it that are often impossible to prove. Any protester has likely seen the telltale signs of this, and it never ends. (i.e. mail goes missing, both sending and receiving, communications/cell phone calls become unreliable in ways ou can't know a message was sent, internet services may throw weird errors on a continual basis, email/submissions dropped silently (i.e. job applications/resumes, or other high importance items like taxes).
Crime/sabotage will increase as its one of the only viable response mechanisms, actual violence too because of the increased cost imposed through broad surveillance efforts. Protesting is protected under the law, but we don't really have a sound rule of law right now since surveillance allows attacks on individuals without attribution.
Journalism - not viable because state run media under the trusted news initiative can outspend and crush competition, and they violate journalistic practices (i.e. they don't distinguish or separate opinion/facts/must-runs from head office in their news broadcasts).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
All this means is that the systems and society will slowly erode and fail, and wise people are preparing now because when order fails so does food production. In a grid down situation you need food, trusted people, and guns (to protect from the food being stolen).
Since you are into SRE/DevOps you are very familiar with cascade failures, and resiliency design as am I. If you have not read Mises, you might enjoy his works on socialism (written in the 1930s) as a structural analysis of how centralized systems involving people fail.
While it is an intractable problem at this point, it isn't hopeless, because it is not the end, but rather a new beginning. There will be dark times ahead, but being forewarned is being forearmed.
Aren’t there cases (like Erin Brockovich) that have been able to challenge the status quo?
There are. The fact that the example that comes to a mind is a case from 30 years ago so heroic they made a movie about it hints this is pretty rare. There doesn’t seem to be an Erin Brokovich for every type of problem or even every location in the US.
John, it is rational anger not irrational, though not a lot of the general public get a background sufficient to express it appropriately, and there's been an ongoing trend of gaslighters claiming rational reasoning is indicative of psychotic ideation, autism, or mental illness, as a deceitful discrediting and nullification technique to curb any communications/discussion on topics.
Some may argue and contest what I'm about to say, but it is well established, primarily under Social Contract Theory (Locke/Rousseau/Kant).
A "rule of law's" primary purpose and function is in allowing non-violent conflict resolution between parties and people that are equal under the law.
Whenever the "rule of law" fails, it becomes a "rule by law", and it allows no recourse, coercing unequally under the law, either fully, or through byzantine/kafka processes; the social contract then fails, and these intolerable acts grow with increasing suffering until society falls back to a natural rule, which primarily includes violence (there is no other alternative when these events occur).
Your anger is a righteous rational anger because these things are well known in legal circles and by historians (its required curricula under political science and philosophy/law eduction iirc, and the outcomes are reasonably well documented in the historical context during several different revolutionary wars).
When you see these things happen, with these type of coercive actions within the courts, it is destructive and erodes the "rule of law" and undermines credibility of institutions, until it becomes a "rule by law", which as I mentioned has severe consequences.
The more widespread, the greater the severity of injustices and outcome. Incidentally, this is also largely why adoption of forced arbitration type clauses had so many respected professionals against it, not being swayed by the false reasoning of reducing costs because it opened up many avenues for corruption and denying/limiting rights to the courts, which are already limited by representation costs (annual median salary for the population is needed upfront to start a cause of action in many cases, few have this this since they spend it on food) and other things.
There are many components of a "rule of law" depending on who you talk to, but broadly speaking it must have 5 things: Independent Judiciary, Equality Under the Law, Laws that are Transparent and Just, and finally Accessible.
Arbitration fails these in several ways. Even the existing court system fails these, but that wasn't always the case, corruption and ruin have made these systems brittle.
Repeating the same mistakes from history is worthy of anger, and this is a rational anger because of the documented consequences.
Some may argue and contest what I'm about to say, but it is well established, primarily under Social Contract Theory (Locke/Rousseau/Kant).
A "rule of law's" primary purpose and function is in allowing non-violent conflict resolution between parties and people that are equal under the law.
Whenever the "rule of law" fails, it becomes a "rule by law", and it allows no recourse, coercing unequally under the law, either fully, or through byzantine/kafka processes; the social contract then fails, and these intolerable acts grow with increasing suffering until society falls back to a natural rule, which primarily includes violence (there is no other alternative when these events occur).
Your anger is a righteous rational anger because these things are well known in legal circles and by historians (its required curricula under political science and philosophy/law eduction iirc, and the outcomes are reasonably well documented in the historical context during several different revolutionary wars).
When you see these things happen, with these type of coercive actions within the courts, it is destructive and erodes the "rule of law" and undermines credibility of institutions, until it becomes a "rule by law", which as I mentioned has severe consequences.
The more widespread, the greater the severity of injustices and outcome. Incidentally, this is also largely why adoption of forced arbitration type clauses had so many respected professionals against it, not being swayed by the false reasoning of reducing costs because it opened up many avenues for corruption and denying/limiting rights to the courts, which are already limited by representation costs (annual median salary for the population is needed upfront to start a cause of action in many cases, few have this this since they spend it on food) and other things.
There are many components of a "rule of law" depending on who you talk to, but broadly speaking it must have 5 things: Independent Judiciary, Equality Under the Law, Laws that are Transparent and Just, and finally Accessible.
Arbitration fails these in several ways. Even the existing court system fails these, but that wasn't always the case, corruption and ruin have made these systems brittle.
Repeating the same mistakes from history is worthy of anger, and this is a rational anger because of the documented consequences.
In France we have this concept, in most cases, that a contract cannot force somebody to accept a lower amount of rights than the general population. So for example if my employer makes me sign a working contract with illegal clauses (say, not enough pay leaves, or below minimum-wage salary), then they are at risk of a lawsuit even though I signed it (in fact they increase their own risk by emitting such contract in the first place).
I wonder how that would apply to general conditions that we "accept" just to get rid of the annoying popup. I mean obviously they won't be able to enforce something like "you accepted to give us 100k/year by clicking << consent >>" but there should be some sort of framework of what is acceptable to contest as a user.
I wonder how that would apply to general conditions that we "accept" just to get rid of the annoying popup. I mean obviously they won't be able to enforce something like "you accepted to give us 100k/year by clicking << consent >>" but there should be some sort of framework of what is acceptable to contest as a user.
In the EU such clauses are voidable under the Unfair contract terms directive. Basically any contract term that creates a high imbalance between the rights and obligations favoring the business in the face of the customer is considered to be unfair. The directive gives non-exhaustive examples which, apropos, includes:
> excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.
Meanwhile, the EU provides arbitration services and suggests in most legislation that users take advantage of it instead of always going to court, but obviously forcing people into arbitration instead of courts produces bad incentives. In the US, it seems to incentivize arbitration to favor the people bringing the business. In the EU, you should mostly just favor it for the speed.
> excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.
Meanwhile, the EU provides arbitration services and suggests in most legislation that users take advantage of it instead of always going to court, but obviously forcing people into arbitration instead of courts produces bad incentives. In the US, it seems to incentivize arbitration to favor the people bringing the business. In the EU, you should mostly just favor it for the speed.
A lot of contract terms are signing away rights. Like if you give up an easement, you’re signing away your right to use that property. So immediately there’s a question of “which rights can you sign away?”.
I think rights the general population looks like a good reference. The general population doesn’t have a right to use that property.
There’s a real problem that so many companies are requiring customers sign away rights, like arbitration clauses where you sign away a right to a trial. Normal market forces aren’t working here. Lots of companies that do this have restricted competition because of government regulation (phone companies). Also, any time the cost is rare but high (most people won’t sue their phone company) the cost is undervalued by consumers. Throw in some monopoly power and you end up in a situation where consumers can’t get essential services without signing away rights, which means those rights don’t really exist.
I think rights the general population looks like a good reference. The general population doesn’t have a right to use that property.
There’s a real problem that so many companies are requiring customers sign away rights, like arbitration clauses where you sign away a right to a trial. Normal market forces aren’t working here. Lots of companies that do this have restricted competition because of government regulation (phone companies). Also, any time the cost is rare but high (most people won’t sue their phone company) the cost is undervalued by consumers. Throw in some monopoly power and you end up in a situation where consumers can’t get essential services without signing away rights, which means those rights don’t really exist.
Yes, but you are not addressing the central claim of the previous comment, which is why private contracts can go above than public law in the US. It's frankly very weird.
I don’t understand. What claim in the previous comment are you referring to? Can you quote it?
> there should be some sort of framework of what is acceptable to contest as a user
There broadly is. A 1925 law puts arbitration in a special bucket [1]. There appears to be bipartisan interest in reform [2].
Put another way, absent the FAA, this language would have likely been struck down.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act#Propos...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_Arbitration_Injustice_R...
There broadly is. A 1925 law puts arbitration in a special bucket [1]. There appears to be bipartisan interest in reform [2].
Put another way, absent the FAA, this language would have likely been struck down.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act#Propos...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_Arbitration_Injustice_R...
> In France we have this concept, in most cases, that a contract cannot force somebody to accept a lower amount of rights than the general population
Washington state has something similar in landlord tenant law for renters - there are several livability/QOL/basic needs (and a few others that fall less into these categories but that have been habitually abused) that "cannot be waived" in a rental agreement, even with specific consideration. (i.e. even if I offer you $100/month less on your rent to sign the waivers, you still cannot - well, you can sign, but you still have those rights).
Washington state has something similar in landlord tenant law for renters - there are several livability/QOL/basic needs (and a few others that fall less into these categories but that have been habitually abused) that "cannot be waived" in a rental agreement, even with specific consideration. (i.e. even if I offer you $100/month less on your rent to sign the waivers, you still cannot - well, you can sign, but you still have those rights).
> They told the BBC the most recent time the terms were agreed to was when their daughter, then 12, had accepted them prior to ordering a pizza on Uber Eats.
Giving megacorps yet more advantages. Oops, you drank an Acme™ brand soft drink, that means you can't sue us when our Acme™ brand self-driving cars crash through your kitchen. Oops, you once turned an Acme™ brand doorknob, that means you waive the right to sue us for malpractice in Acme™ brand hospitals.
Giving megacorps yet more advantages. Oops, you drank an Acme™ brand soft drink, that means you can't sue us when our Acme™ brand self-driving cars crash through your kitchen. Oops, you once turned an Acme™ brand doorknob, that means you waive the right to sue us for malpractice in Acme™ brand hospitals.
All companies could just use one Acme among them!
It's called a phone. Ever open our website?
That's what insurance is for. I don't know about US, but in my country, India, every ride is insured by law. See [1].
This is definitely not the first accident inside Uber cab in New Jersey, and they should look into past examples.
[1]: https://www.uber.com/en-IN/newsroom/uber-insures-riders-in-i...
This is definitely not the first accident inside Uber cab in New Jersey, and they should look into past examples.
[1]: https://www.uber.com/en-IN/newsroom/uber-insures-riders-in-i...
The insurance exists mainly to discourage customers from making an informal deal with the driver so Uber loses its cut.
And only came into being after Uber started getting significant backlash for implying heavily that your personal insurance would cover you when you are performing work-for-hire.
[deleted]
Do we have a link to the ruling?
I grabbed it off njcourts.gov and uploaded here: https://files.catbox.moe/soj1zo.pdf
Access to courts is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen in modern societies. Mandatory arbitration clauses take that right away. We need a new law to restore access to courts.
Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are vile. There is some legit support for reforming courts, or providing less formal access to courts, but the current US arbitration system meets all three definitions [0] of 'Kangaroo Court'
(some background)
I've been spending more than a year learning everything I can about arbitration.
1. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ - a detailed, well sourced, listing arbitration problems. I also include positives there. While its biased, it isn't actually biased against arbitration. It is biased in favour of fairness and consumer rights.
2. Every reference used on the website and many more: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ -- I have ready everything listed here in full including every footnote.
3. Every supreme court case (and some none USSC) case related. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/arbitration/ -- I have ready everything listed here in full including every footnote.
4. I've also read a lot not linked here. I don't include it because I've not yet read in full. I have a backlog of over 265 items to read. I intend to get to them all.
6. I am not an attorney. However, I am deeply familiar with law, have taken the same classes that lawyers take for continuing education (CLE courses) on the topic, and have attended (and will continue to attend) academic conferences on the topic.
7. Real lawyers - including some who have argued cases in front of the supreme court - on cases listed above - have told me that my website is both thorough and accurate. I'd include their endorsements, but I have not yet asked them for permission. Also, the site changes over time and I'd want to figure out a way to make to indicate which version of the site they endorsed.
8. On a personal note: I really dislike falsehoods and unfairness. I am almost obsessive on learning everything I can on this topic. Seriously.
9. I suspect, with good reason, that I can be reasonably be considered an 'expert' on the topic. The only people who know more than me on the topic are likely attorneys who specifically get paid to work on this area (consumer/employment/financial arbitration)
10A. I do have some blind spots: (a) I am not an attorney by training or trade. (b) I have been a client in arbitration but not a representative. Since arbitration is often confidential, and they aren't courts of record, its hard to learn about what actually happens inside the process.
10B. However, I am working on fixing this as much as I can. I'm in touch with both attorneys, academics, and (soon) arbitration providers to see what I could learn. I'm still working on figuring some additional ways to learn more.
[0] Kangaroo Court—Black’s Law Dictionary—Ninth Edition. (2009). In Bryan A. Garner (Ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition, p. 409). WEST - Thomson Reuters. ↩
(some background)
I've been spending more than a year learning everything I can about arbitration.
1. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ - a detailed, well sourced, listing arbitration problems. I also include positives there. While its biased, it isn't actually biased against arbitration. It is biased in favour of fairness and consumer rights.
2. Every reference used on the website and many more: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ -- I have ready everything listed here in full including every footnote.
3. Every supreme court case (and some none USSC) case related. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/arbitration/ -- I have ready everything listed here in full including every footnote.
4. I've also read a lot not linked here. I don't include it because I've not yet read in full. I have a backlog of over 265 items to read. I intend to get to them all.
6. I am not an attorney. However, I am deeply familiar with law, have taken the same classes that lawyers take for continuing education (CLE courses) on the topic, and have attended (and will continue to attend) academic conferences on the topic.
7. Real lawyers - including some who have argued cases in front of the supreme court - on cases listed above - have told me that my website is both thorough and accurate. I'd include their endorsements, but I have not yet asked them for permission. Also, the site changes over time and I'd want to figure out a way to make to indicate which version of the site they endorsed.
8. On a personal note: I really dislike falsehoods and unfairness. I am almost obsessive on learning everything I can on this topic. Seriously.
9. I suspect, with good reason, that I can be reasonably be considered an 'expert' on the topic. The only people who know more than me on the topic are likely attorneys who specifically get paid to work on this area (consumer/employment/financial arbitration)
10A. I do have some blind spots: (a) I am not an attorney by training or trade. (b) I have been a client in arbitration but not a representative. Since arbitration is often confidential, and they aren't courts of record, its hard to learn about what actually happens inside the process.
10B. However, I am working on fixing this as much as I can. I'm in touch with both attorneys, academics, and (soon) arbitration providers to see what I could learn. I'm still working on figuring some additional ways to learn more.
[0] Kangaroo Court—Black’s Law Dictionary—Ninth Edition. (2009). In Bryan A. Garner (Ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition, p. 409). WEST - Thomson Reuters. ↩
> Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are vile
Not really. Forced pre-dispute arbitration between persons of different legal sophistication is.
Pre-dispute arbitration per se is perfeclty fine in most commercial settings. In many cases, it prevents the party with more money running out the clock on the other's legal resources.
Not really. Forced pre-dispute arbitration between persons of different legal sophistication is.
Pre-dispute arbitration per se is perfeclty fine in most commercial settings. In many cases, it prevents the party with more money running out the clock on the other's legal resources.
You are correct. Please see https://arbitrationinformation.org/#scope for some additional limitations that I intended.
I should write out a more formalized (or at least, copy-pasteable) view here.
(this effort is entirely done on my free and spare time. which I have very little of :( )
I should write out a more formalized (or at least, copy-pasteable) view here.
(this effort is entirely done on my free and spare time. which I have very little of :( )
Why not sue the car manufacturer then? Public transport is much safer.
I honestly don't understand, at all, what sort of liability would be in Uber's camp.
Uber is a tech company that basically writes an app and maintains servers. They do their damndest to pretend that the drivers do not work for Uber. They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end. How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?
Since all that Uber does is write an app, then this family should be targeting the sole person who may bear any responsibility or liability: the driver themselves. It's the driver's personal vehicle: it's not a fleet model, and Uber neither provides these, nor even inspects them! It's all on the driver and the driver's insurance, so let the drivers be sued.
Article says nothing about whether they've pursued this avenue, but just attempts to garner outrage over Uber's perceived invulnerability here.
Uber is a tech company that basically writes an app and maintains servers. They do their damndest to pretend that the drivers do not work for Uber. They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end. How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?
Since all that Uber does is write an app, then this family should be targeting the sole person who may bear any responsibility or liability: the driver themselves. It's the driver's personal vehicle: it's not a fleet model, and Uber neither provides these, nor even inspects them! It's all on the driver and the driver's insurance, so let the drivers be sued.
Article says nothing about whether they've pursued this avenue, but just attempts to garner outrage over Uber's perceived invulnerability here.
The cynical answer: they sue uber because uber has money and the driver has approximately none. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone.
The less cynical answer: they have a business relationship with Uber. They looked at Uber’s logo as they were ordering. Uber took their money. Uber is who appears in their bank statement. They had no control over which driver drives them, Uber did. They had no information about the driver except what little Uber provided them with. If not for Uber they would have never been able to connect with the driver. Uber’s reputation is why they trusted the driver.
> They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end.
Sounds like very good reasons why Uber is liable then?
> How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?
It also sounds like your very own comment answers this question. By vetting the drivers. By checking the cars. By not looking the other way when accounts are rented illicitly, and so on and so on.
The less cynical answer: they have a business relationship with Uber. They looked at Uber’s logo as they were ordering. Uber took their money. Uber is who appears in their bank statement. They had no control over which driver drives them, Uber did. They had no information about the driver except what little Uber provided them with. If not for Uber they would have never been able to connect with the driver. Uber’s reputation is why they trusted the driver.
> They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end.
Sounds like very good reasons why Uber is liable then?
> How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?
It also sounds like your very own comment answers this question. By vetting the drivers. By checking the cars. By not looking the other way when accounts are rented illicitly, and so on and so on.
Maybe less cynical answer: maybe because Uber states that they provide insurance for drivers and riders and that’s why?
https://www.uber.com/us/en/safety/#
There’s auto insurance to help protect you Leading auto insurance providers help protect riders and drivers on the Uber app. Uber maintains commercial auto insurance in case of a covered accident, including at least $1 million in liability insurance on behalf of drivers and delivery people once a ride is accepted.
https://www.uber.com/us/en/safety/#
There’s auto insurance to help protect you Leading auto insurance providers help protect riders and drivers on the Uber app. Uber maintains commercial auto insurance in case of a covered accident, including at least $1 million in liability insurance on behalf of drivers and delivery people once a ride is accepted.
[deleted]
Maybe the sort of liability you tout on your own website telling your customers how safe you keep them and how much everything is insured????
https://www.uber.com/us/en/safety/#
“ There’s auto insurance to help protect you Leading auto insurance providers help protect riders and drivers on the Uber app. Uber maintains commercial auto insurance in case of a covered accident, including at least $1 million in liability insurance on behalf of drivers and delivery people once a ride is accepted.”
https://www.uber.com/us/en/safety/#
“ There’s auto insurance to help protect you Leading auto insurance providers help protect riders and drivers on the Uber app. Uber maintains commercial auto insurance in case of a covered accident, including at least $1 million in liability insurance on behalf of drivers and delivery people once a ride is accepted.”
> Uber is a tech company that basically writes an app and maintains servers.
This is an illusion they have been keen to promote in many places, but one which has been shattered in various courts. Drivers are considered workers or even employees in some countries[1].
> They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end. How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?
Indeed, and this is a major problem, companies should not be able to run with such poor practices and such little accountability.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/19/uber-driv...
This is an illusion they have been keen to promote in many places, but one which has been shattered in various courts. Drivers are considered workers or even employees in some countries[1].
> They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end. How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?
Indeed, and this is a major problem, companies should not be able to run with such poor practices and such little accountability.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/19/uber-driv...
> Since all that Uber does is write an app
They not only wrote the app, but they host the service and charge the end customer - you aren't paying the driver, you pay uber, who clip the ticket and then pay the remainder on (less taxes) to the driver.
They not only wrote the app, but they host the service and charge the end customer - you aren't paying the driver, you pay uber, who clip the ticket and then pay the remainder on (less taxes) to the driver.
So if an Airbnb host steals your laptop, Airbnb should be responsible?
> So if an Airbnb host steals your laptop, Airbnb should be responsible?
This is like saying "So if an employee of a hotel booked through Booking.com steals your laptop, Booking.com should be responsible?", where the answer is no. When you book on Booking.com or Airbnb you are freely choosing where you stay, and using the platform only as a marketplace.
However, in Uber's case, you are supposedly insured by uber, and you hire them to provide a service, which is then assigned to a driver. You can't choose the driver you get, or the car or whatever, so it's not a marketplace.
A case like Airbnb would also be any flight booking app like Expedia or Skyscanner, where you can see what multiple airlines offer and choose from them, and then book with the airline. If something happens, you file a claim or lawsuit against the airline.
Edit: I'm not talking about factual law, IANAL and I'm not in the US so there's that. I'm talking about what it _should_ be and what _would_ be fair.
This is like saying "So if an employee of a hotel booked through Booking.com steals your laptop, Booking.com should be responsible?", where the answer is no. When you book on Booking.com or Airbnb you are freely choosing where you stay, and using the platform only as a marketplace.
However, in Uber's case, you are supposedly insured by uber, and you hire them to provide a service, which is then assigned to a driver. You can't choose the driver you get, or the car or whatever, so it's not a marketplace.
A case like Airbnb would also be any flight booking app like Expedia or Skyscanner, where you can see what multiple airlines offer and choose from them, and then book with the airline. If something happens, you file a claim or lawsuit against the airline.
Edit: I'm not talking about factual law, IANAL and I'm not in the US so there's that. I'm talking about what it _should_ be and what _would_ be fair.
Does Airbnb choose where you stay? Because Uber chooses who you drive with, and has all the data around that driver, whereas you do not. Completely different scenarios.
For sure. Airbnb can then go sue the host, but the user has a contract with Airbnb not the host. Maybe then Airbnb would start giving a single shit about abusive hosts.
Possibly not, possibly yes if it is a one time theft depending on juridictions. Definitely yes if this a repeat and it has been made known to them through several customer complaints visiting same host.
if a hotel manager steals your laptop, yes, you can sue the hotel.
Because that's not how product liability works, like at all.
You can, as you say, blame the driver. It's not clear from my reading the article who is at fault here for the accident. But there's a broader liability issue: does Uber engage in practices that make such an accident more likely? Do they do so knowing this?
Example: imagine Uber lets a driver continually take rides for 30 hours straight. At some point the driver is fatigued and is more likely to crash. This is a foreseeable issue so, if it were true (and I'm not saying it is; this is just an example), Uber could still be liable.
The Uber ToS of course seek to limit liability by forfeiting rights and submitting to binding arbitration. This state court has upheld the enforceability of the Uber ToS. That's not binding on any other state so this has a long way to go before becoming a useful legal precedent.
You can, as you say, blame the driver. It's not clear from my reading the article who is at fault here for the accident. But there's a broader liability issue: does Uber engage in practices that make such an accident more likely? Do they do so knowing this?
Example: imagine Uber lets a driver continually take rides for 30 hours straight. At some point the driver is fatigued and is more likely to crash. This is a foreseeable issue so, if it were true (and I'm not saying it is; this is just an example), Uber could still be liable.
The Uber ToS of course seek to limit liability by forfeiting rights and submitting to binding arbitration. This state court has upheld the enforceability of the Uber ToS. That's not binding on any other state so this has a long way to go before becoming a useful legal precedent.
> Since all that Uber does is write an app, then this family should be targeting the sole person who may bear any responsibility or liability: the driver themselves
Is there an allegation of negligence on Uber's part? For example, did the driver have a history of accidents? If so, I could see liability extending to them.
Is there an allegation of negligence on Uber's part? For example, did the driver have a history of accidents? If so, I could see liability extending to them.
You answered the question.
> I honestly don't understand, at all, what sort of liability would be in Uber's camp.
> Uber ... do their damndest to pretend that the drivers do not work for Uber.
If I am in a vehicle accident and hit by a commercial vehicle (and in fact I have been, though not an Uber, vehicle totaled and I was injured), the insurance policy is held by the employer, and generally I would also sue the employer, not the individual driver (and if I did, I would expect that the employer or their insurer would come between us).
The whole "pretending they don't work for Uber" is a free pass to all sorts of shenanigans. You're right, "how could they be possibly be aware?" - but that's the point, they're doing these things to try not to be aware, for exactly these reasons (as well as the employment benefits and local regulation crap).
> I honestly don't understand, at all, what sort of liability would be in Uber's camp.
> Uber ... do their damndest to pretend that the drivers do not work for Uber.
If I am in a vehicle accident and hit by a commercial vehicle (and in fact I have been, though not an Uber, vehicle totaled and I was injured), the insurance policy is held by the employer, and generally I would also sue the employer, not the individual driver (and if I did, I would expect that the employer or their insurer would come between us).
The whole "pretending they don't work for Uber" is a free pass to all sorts of shenanigans. You're right, "how could they be possibly be aware?" - but that's the point, they're doing these things to try not to be aware, for exactly these reasons (as well as the employment benefits and local regulation crap).
If a restaurant serves me expired food I don’t blame the chef, I blame the restaurant.
In this case the restaurant is the driver
No. You have no business relationship with the driver. We are more likely in the case where the chief is an independent contractor in the restaurant. And especially, unlike the restaurant, you didn’t chose the driver.
Maybe (probably) the driver is at fault but as a customer, you only did business with Uber so you should sue Uber and get their money and then Uber should sue the driver and get their money (or their insurance money).
Maybe (probably) the driver is at fault but as a customer, you only did business with Uber so you should sue Uber and get their money and then Uber should sue the driver and get their money (or their insurance money).
No, in this case uber is the restaurant, and the fact that the driver/chef is supposedly a contractor or some such construct doesn't change that.
It's not though. They used an Uber app to order an Uber taxi, presumably with Uber branding outside, and Uber charged them money for it. Uber the corporation is the restaurant here.
Do they call the driver directly? Does the driver charge them directly inside the car? Nope, Uber does.
Many governments do not agree with that kind of tech feudalism technics and in many juridictions, Uber, as well as similar apps (like delivery apps) making use of legal loopholes to pretend they are just a platform are forced to be considered as employer because that is what they are really.
I kind of prefer that the entity that sells a consumer something is responsible for the good or service. If I book an Uber, I buy the service from Uber. If I order something from Amazon, I buy it from Amazon. There may be subcontractors and other internal bureaucratic details, but they should not concern me. If I do business with a company, it should not matter whether the service is ultimately provided by their employee, a freelancer, or another company. If something goes wrong, the company I dealt with should be liable. They may have internal processes for assigning the ultimate liability, but those should not concern me.
If this were the case, corporations would have no liability whatsoever, as they could always say “it was the employee acting independently.” They would then structure companies to be comprised entirely of contractors, not employees, to further emphasize this supposed division. (They’re already doing this last part, but more so they don’t have to provide benefits.)
The second paragraph of your post seems to imply negligence on the end of Uber if they're not vetting properly.
Uber also insures the rides, by law.
So they are liable to some extent.
So they are liable to some extent.
Doesn't insurance waive and protect the parties from liability?
If the ill-fated ride was properly insured, why is this family so destitute from it? Didn't it pay out enough?
If the ill-fated ride was properly insured, why is this family so destitute from it? Didn't it pay out enough?
"Waive"? No.
Some protection, up to the limits of policy? Yes.
If I incur $200K in medical bills because of your negligence in an accident, and you're insured for $100K? I'm taking that $100K from your insurer, and filing suit against you for the other $100K.
(Whether or not I'll get it, and how quickly, etc., is a separate matter, but you don't get to say "Oh, no, I was insured, and they paid you, so I am indemnified now, regardless of how well that payment reflected what you were entitled to.")
Some protection, up to the limits of policy? Yes.
If I incur $200K in medical bills because of your negligence in an accident, and you're insured for $100K? I'm taking that $100K from your insurer, and filing suit against you for the other $100K.
(Whether or not I'll get it, and how quickly, etc., is a separate matter, but you don't get to say "Oh, no, I was insured, and they paid you, so I am indemnified now, regardless of how well that payment reflected what you were entitled to.")
As valid as your argument might be, it's different from the argument given for rejecting this case.
This is about the terms of use.
This is about the terms of use.
as a consumer now I have two choices - one being to completely abstain from normal consumption practices, and be labeled a paranoid weirdo for not wanting to participate in any of these corporation’s services lest I get into some horrible unlikely predicament later and have no recourse because I used a starbuck’s at a disney park’s subsidiary once. Or just succumb, knowingly or unknowingly.
Just completely beyond the pale to me. It’s almost satirical.